value play from another point of view

[Capper Al]

Let's say that you are looking for natural or random odds horse and don't have a value play in your top three. And let's say that your A horse is going off at even money, your B horse is going at 2/1, and your C horse is going off at 9/2. Do you see the C horse as the action bet to show? I think I'm going that way because 3 for a third divided into 9/2 is 1.5 higher than my A or B selections.

[whodoyoulike]

I know this is difficult to do but, why not pass the race. Save your money for another time unless you have different betting and separate BR's.

[Capper Al]

I know this is difficult to do but, why not pass the race. Save your money for another time unless you have different betting and separate BR's.

Can't pass a race. This is the best that I can do.

[thaskalos]

Can't pass a race. This is the best that I can do.
You mean to tell me that you were profitable at the track for five straight years, without being able to ever pass a race?

[MJC922]

Let's say that you are looking for natural or random odds horse and don't have a value play in your top three. And let's say that your A horse is going off at even money, your B horse is going at 2/1, and your C horse is going off at 9/2. Do you see the C horse as the action bet to show? I think I'm going that way because 3 for a third divided into 9/2 is 1.5 higher than my A or B selections.

Let me ask you this, your third choice wins a race how often in the average 8 horse field, 10-12% Pick numbers out of a hat and how often does it win? Same thing. Probably not fertile ground for chasing overlays and show betting makes things worse not better.

[Some_One]

Let's say that you are looking for natural or random odds horse and don't have a value play in your top three. And let's say that your A horse is going off at even money, your B horse is going at 2/1, and your C horse is going off at 9/2. Do you see the C horse as the action bet to show? I think I'm going that way because 3 for a third divided into 9/2 is 1.5 higher than my A or B selections.

Betting the fav to show is the best value

[horses4courses]

You mean to tell me that you were profitable at the track for five straight years, without being able to ever pass a race?

I was thinking the same thing.......hmmm.......that would be nice

[DeltaLover]

Let's say that you are looking for natural or random odds horse and don't have a value play in your top three. And let's say that your A horse is going off at even money, your B horse is going at 2/1, and your C horse is going off at 9/2. Do you see the C horse as the action bet to show? I think I'm going that way because 3 for a third divided into 9/2 is 1.5 higher than my A or B selections.

Typical example of a PASS

[Capper Al]

You mean to tell me that you were profitable at the track for five straight years, without being able to ever pass a race?

Passed very few and would, at least, make an action bet for $2.00.

[Jingle]

Action bets get me in trouble--take a break and get a coffee. Patience is a virtue.

[davew]

Passed very few and would, at least, make an action bet for $2.00.

how about $5,3,2 for $10 win on fav, 2/1, 9/2 if you must bet action

[Capper Al]

how about $5,3,2 for $10 win on fav, 2/1, 9/2 if you must bet action

The idea here is that your third choice is possibly paying better than your first two choices, plus you have two more spots where your third choice could finish.

[ReplayRandall]

The idea here is that your third choice is possibly paying better than your first two choices, plus you have two more spots where your third choice could finish.
Al, is this really the point of the post you started here? Or are you looking for something else that's a better option besides passing the race?

[Grits]

Al, I'm gonna put it to ya straight. I wouldn't get outta the bed to bet show on a 9-2

If this is your idea of action. You gotta problem... :lol:

[Robert Goren]

Let's say that you are looking for natural or random odds horse and don't have a value play in your top three. And let's say that your A horse is going off at even money, your B horse is going at 2/1, and your C horse is going off at 9/2. Do you see the C horse as the action bet to show? I think I'm going that way because 3 for a third divided into 9/2 is 1.5 higher than my A or B selections.It is not a bet I would make. The money moves around too much in the show pools. Value in the show pool very often disappears after the gates open. I think it is likely that there are computer programs at work at most major tracks that are doing a balancing acts.

[Some_One]

It is not a bet I would make. The money moves around too much in the show pools. Value in the show pool very often disappears after the gates open. I think it is likely that there are computer programs at work at most major tracks that are doing a balancing acts.

I think there is some value in the show pool in favs, people tend to avoid betting the fav in the show pool as they perceive getting 30 or 40 cents on the dollar as not being value and they chase higher payoffs. Take Bel R3 today, the fav :9: had 29% of the win pool but only 23% of the show pool while a longshot like :4: had 7% of the win pool but 11% of the show pool.

[Capper Al]

Al, is this really the point of the post you started here? Or are you looking for something else that's a better option besides passing the race?

Action bets are to fight off boredom. I'm a weekend warrior and usually only wager one card a weekend. Skipping a race is a bigger deal to me. My point in this thread was just to chat about action bets. I have been known not to skip races. Need to develop a discipline that fits my weekend play.

[Capper Al]

Al, I'm gonna put it to ya straight. I wouldn't get outta the bed to bet show on a 9-2

If this is your idea of action. You gotta problem... :lol:

How many times have you seen the place or show horse out pay the winner? I'm not there for the action bet, but am waiting my time for the value play and possible big hit.

[Capper Al]

I was thinking the same thing.......hmmm.......that would be nice

It was. I'm now trying to get it back.

[Capper Al]

how about $5,3,2 for $10 win on fav, 2/1, 9/2 if you must bet action

What you suggest is real play. I consider these races having not much more value than entertainment. That's why the action bet.

[Capper Al]

I know this is difficult to do but, why not pass the race. Save your money for another time unless you have different betting and separate BR's.

I'm weak and give into temptation just ask Boxer.

[Capper Al]

I think there is some value in the show pool in favs, people tend to avoid betting the fav in the show pool as they perceive getting 30 or 40 cents on the dollar as not being value and they chase higher payoffs. Take Bel R3 today, the fav :9: had 29% of the win pool but only 23% of the show pool while a longshot like :4: had 7% of the win pool but 11% of the show pool.

Why not if the odds are there and you need a bet?

[FocusWiz]

If you need a bet and want to play something for show, why are you basing it on the WIN odds? Why wouldn't you look for value in the show pools?

[whodoyoulike]

Let's say that you are looking for natural or random odds horse and don't have a value play in your top three. And let's say that your A horse is going off at even money, your B horse is going at 2/1, and your C horse is going off at 9/2. Do you see the C horse as the action bet to show? I think I'm going that way because 3 for a third divided into 9/2 is 1.5 higher than my A or B selections.

How many times have you seen the place or show horse out pay the winner? I'm not there for the action bet, but am waiting my time for the value play and possible big hit.

I know it's difficult to pass a race once you've spent time handicapping etc., but one of my points in this case is you will hopefully realize:

What is your expected return on your $2.00 show bet when the horse is going off at 9/2 (if it indeed at least shows)? Remember, this is your third choice.

Is it really worth it (even assume a $20 or $50 show bet), if you conclude it's still worth it then go for it.

[Some_One]

I know it's difficult to pass a race once you've spent time handicapping etc., but one of my points in this case is you will hopefully realize:

What is your expected return on your $2.00 show bet when the horse is going off at 9/2 (if it indeed at least shows)? Remember, this is your third choice.

Is it really worth it (even assume a $20 or $50 show bet), if you conclude it's still worth it then go for it.

Do you think the EV's of a win bet and a show bet is that far off on low price horses?

[whodoyoulike]

Do you think the EV's of a win bet and a show bet is that far off on low price horses?

Before I make a bet hopefully it's at an acceptable odds at least for me. I have some guidelines which I use to determine the payout for a WPS bets.

What do you think will be the show payout on his $2.00 bet at 9/2 odds?

[thaskalos]

What do you think will be the show payout on his $2.00 bet at 9/2 odds?
$2.80...if he is lucky.

[thaskalos]

The idea here is that your third choice is possibly paying better than your first two choices, plus you have two more spots where your third choice could finish.

The fact is that, by your own admission, there are at least two horses in this race who are better than the horse that you are betting to show. Acknowledging this from the very start...how sure are you that your horse will finish in the money? Does the probable reward justify the risk? In my opinion, it clearly doesn't...and the money should remain in your pocket.

Of course, it's YOUR money...

[Capper Al]

I know it's difficult to pass a race once you've spent time handicapping etc., but one of my points in this case is you will hopefully realize:

What is your expected return on your $2.00 show bet when the horse is going off at 9/2 (if it indeed at least shows)? Remember, this is your third choice.

Is it really worth it (even assume a $20 or $50 show bet), if you conclude it's still worth it then go for it.

My action bet is $2.00. I'd expect less than $5.00 return on a 9/2 show bet.

[Capper Al]

If you need a bet and want to play something for show, why are you basing it on the WIN odds? Why wouldn't you look for value in the show pools?

That is the correct way to do it.

[Capper Al]

The fact is that, by your own admission, there are at least two horses in this race who are better than the horse that you are betting to show. Acknowledging this from the very start...how sure are you that your horse will finish in the money? Does the probable reward justify the risk? In my opinion, it clearly doesn't...and the money should remain in your pocket.

Of course, it's YOUR money...

I know that I think that but I doubt that both of them will be there. Remember this is just a $2.00 bet to pass time.

[thaskalos]

My action bet is $2.00. I'd expect less than $5.00 return on a 9/2 show bet.
With a 9/2 horse...you should expect less than a $5 return on a PLACE bet.

[thaskalos]

I know that I think that but I doubt that both of them will be there. Remember this is just a $2.00 bet to pass time.
If you doubt that both of the better horses will get there...then you should have even bigger doubts that your three top-rated horses will all finish in the money. Why not bet your FOURTH pick to show...at much better odds? If you are gonna make action bets...then make the kind of action bets which will generate a little excitement.

[whodoyoulike]

$2.80...if he is lucky.

I agree. I estimated $2.50 - $2.80. Not worth it.

Why would someone risk $2.00 to get $0.50 - $0.80?

[Some_One]

I agree. I estimated $2.50 - $2.80. Not worth it.

Why would someone risk $2.00 to get $0.50 - $0.80?

Terrible mindset, the fav will finish in the money at almost twice the rate of the 4th choice according to my numbers.

SHOW BETS (8 horse field)
Choice Starts Pays Pct $Net
---------------------------------------------------------------
1 6,683 4,673 69.9 $1.79
2 6,540 3,831 58.6 $1.76
3 6,495 3,087 47.5 $1.64
4 6,513 2,598 39.9 $1.62

[ReplayRandall]

Action bets are to fight off boredom. I'm a weekend warrior and usually only wager one card a weekend. Skipping a race is a bigger deal to me. My point in this thread was just to chat about action bets. I have been known not to skip races. Need to develop a discipline that fits my weekend play.
After giving it some thought, the cheapest I can get meaningful action for you is $6. You'll be playing 3 doubles to your horse in the next race(assuming you have a play).
$3-Dbl with Even horse to your next race play
$2-Dbl with 2-1 to " " "
$1-Dbl with 9-2 to " " "

This kills 2 birds with one stone, (A)- It gives you your action (B)- If one of the 3 horses wins, you're on a free-roll, thus saving money you would have bet to win in the next race.......best I can do, seeing how I would always pass on this type of scenario you outlined.

[Capper Al]

If you doubt that both of the better horses will get there...then you should have even bigger doubts that your three top-rated horses will all finish in the money. Why not bet your FOURTH pick to show...at much better odds? If you are gonna make action bets...then make the kind of action bets which will generate a little excitement.

Betting the D horse is possible with the right odds.

[Capper Al]

I agree. I estimated $2.50 - $2.80. Not worth it.

Why would someone risk $2.00 to get $0.50 - $0.80?

Entertainment and staying focused and learning to improve your game. The cost might be $4.00 to $8.00 a card. Let's say there are 4 no value races in a card. Your cost to play them is $8.00. A probable weak return would be $4.00. You lost $4.00. Hopefully, you were paying attention while you were entertaining yourself. $4.00 isn't a big loss.

[Capper Al]

After giving it some thought, the cheapest I can get meaningful action for you is $6. You'll be playing 3 doubles to your horse in the next race(assuming you have a play).
$3-Dbl with Even horse to your next race play
$2-Dbl with 2-1 to " " "
$1-Dbl with 9-2 to " " "

This kills 2 birds with one stone, (A)- It gives you your action (B)- If one of the 3 horses wins, you're on a free-roll, thus saving money you would have bet to win in the next race.......best I can do, seeing how I would always pass on this type of scenario you outlined.

Interesting alternative. I'll keep an eye on it. $6.00 for me is my minimum value play, so this would be a little high for me.

[raybo]

Action bets are to fight off boredom. I'm a weekend warrior and usually only wager one card a weekend. Skipping a race is a bigger deal to me. My point in this thread was just to chat about action bets. I have been known not to skip races. Need to develop a discipline that fits my weekend play.

If you must bet a situation like that, and can dutch it, do it. If not, bet your best value horse to win (by value I mean the horse that is offering more odds than his probability of winning say he should). And, if you can't determine/approximate win probability, then bet the even money horse to show for $2 max. :bang:

[whodoyoulike]

Terrible mindset, the fav will finish in the money at almost twice the rate of the 4th choice according to my numbers.

SHOW BETS (8 horse field)
Choice Starts Pays Pct $Net
---------------------------------------------------------------
1 6,683 4,673 69.9 $1.79
2 6,540 3,831 58.6 $1.76
3 6,495 3,087 47.5 $1.64
4 6,513 2,598 39.9 $1.62

He wasn't considering a fav or even his top choice. I still consider it a bad bet.

[whodoyoulike]

My action bet is $2.00. I'd expect less than $5.00 return on a 9/2 show bet.

Just so I'm understanding your line of thinking, you've found a 9/2 odds horse which will pay $11.00 to win and about $5.00 to show.

What do you think the place payout would be for $2.00?

I hope you realize all of the advice being provided was to help you and with your BR management.

How about helping us out and let us know which track(s) you are betting?

[raybo]

I don't know about the problem of feeling like you have to bet races that you don't consider good betting races, because I have never had the compunction to gamble just to gamble, but IF I did have that problem (and could not garner the will power to resist action/entertainment bets) I would just put $2 on the longest price in the field. I mean you're just guessing anyway, and you stated that you're ok with throwing away $4-$8 per card, might as well get paid well when you do happen to get lucky.

[raybo]

I don't know about the problem of feeling like you have to bet races that you don't consider good betting races, because I have never had the compunction to gamble just to gamble, but IF I did have that problem (and could not garner the will power to resist action/entertainment bets) I would just put $2 on the longest price in the field. I mean you're just guessing anyway, and you stated that you're ok with throwing away $4-$8 per card, might as well get paid well when you do happen to get lucky.

Correction, the bolded word in my last post should have been "compulsion". Thanks Overlay!! Old age disease strikes again.

[whodoyoulike]

Correction, the bolded word in my last post should have been "compulsion". Thanks Overlay!! Old age disease strikes again.

I just figured people your age just started using "compunction" as part of your vernacular.

[MitchS]

Let's say that you are looking for natural or random odds horse and don't have a value play in your top three. And let's say that your A horse is going off at even money, your B horse is going at 2/1, and your C horse is going off at 9/2. Do you see the C horse as the action bet to show? I think I'm going that way because 3 for a third divided into 9/2 is 1.5 higher than my A or B selections.


Bet to show? The only question I have is. Did you construct your own odds line on your three contenders A, B and C? The 2 factors that go into any wager is..

1. What is the percentage probability of your 3 contenders to win that relates to your line?

2. What are the final odds at post time? The public's perception.


Outcome- Combine these two factors together and Bet to win, a percentage of your bankroll on C. Now that always doesn't mean that there's a bet in the race. The outcome of this could be a non-wager. Sit back and smell the roses. IMHO

[Capper Al]

Bet to show? The only question I have is. Did you construct your own odds line on your three contenders A, B and C? The 2 factors that go into any wager is..

1. What is the percentage probability of your 3 contenders to win that relates to your line?

2. What are the final odds at post time? The public's perception.


Outcome- Combine these two factors together and Bet to win, a percentage of your bankroll on C. Now that always doesn't mean that there's a bet in the race. The outcome of this could be a non-wager. Sit back and smell the roses. IMHO

People have taken this too serious. By action bet, I mean only a race to throw $2.00 to cheer for something. The odds in the given example are post time odds. The question being implied is a third choice to show at 9/2, in an action bet situation, better than our top choice at even money? The reasoning is 9/2 or 4.5/1 divided by 3 (3 spots to cash) better than a 1/1 with only 1 spot to cash. Here 4.5/3 is 1.5 possibly indicating a better value in this case. That's it. This is not meant to be a betting system for serious wagers.

[MitchS]

People have taken this too serious. By action bet, I mean only a race to throw $2.00 to cheer for something. The odds in the given example are post time odds. The question being implied is a third choice to show at 9/2, in an action bet situation, better than our top choice at even money? The reasoning is 9/2 or 4.5/1 divided by 3 (3 spots to cash) better than a 1/1 with only 1 spot to cash. Here 4.5/3 is 1.5 possibly indicating a better value in this case. That's it. This is not meant to be a betting system for serious wagers.


k, I understand. And yes, I do tend to take some things too seriously sometimes, lol

Have great day Al
Mitch

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Al, as a recreational player I can relate to your attitude to rarely pass a race. Unlike some others on this board, I don't see any harm at all in action bets. As a matter of fact, they equate to a "pass" for me, as a $2 to $5 wager is far less than I bet in a race in which I do have a stronger opinion. It's the cost of doing business, when the the business is entertainment. And I agree that a small wager can help keep the focus for learning a bit, as opposed to "pass and forget about it" for a race with no vested interest.

It's rare for my A, B and C horses to line up with 1-1, 2-1 and 9-2 odds. But if they do, I'd approach the race with gimmicks in mind versus the show pool. Something like:

$1 Tri key A with B-C
or
$1 Tri p/w A with B with C-D
or
$2 Ex B over A
or
10 cent super p/w A with B-C with B-C-D with B-C-D-E-F-G-H

Examining the percentages of monies in the place and show pools or looking at the exacta probables might indicate a live horse underneath the chalk. Betting a gimmick versus a show wager keeps the attention on more horses in the race, and not just the single horse you have an investment riding on.....

[ultracapper]

People have taken this too serious. By action bet, I mean only a race to throw $2.00 to cheer for something. The odds in the given example are post time odds. The question being implied is a third choice to show at 9/2, in an action bet situation, better than our top choice at even money? The reasoning is 9/2 or 4.5/1 divided by 3 (3 spots to cash) better than a 1/1 with only 1 spot to cash. Here 4.5/3 is 1.5 possibly indicating a better value in this case. That's it. This is not meant to be a betting system for serious wagers.

You're right, they have taken it too seriously. It's a $2 bet to kill boredom. Why are you even thinking strategy at all. Throw $2 out there on a birthday, or a name, or color, or whatever. Not to be insulting, but I don't even see the point of this thread.

[ultracapper]

And yeah, bet it to show. You do that, and hit your first 2 action bets, you may be up $2 now and your 3rd action bet is on the house. Whatever.

[raybo]

I don't understand the OP's stance here. He said in his first post that he is looking for a natural or random odds horse to place an action/recreational bet on, and yet he uses a 9/2 horse as that natural/random odds horse. Even in a 7 horse field, natural probability would be 6 chances of losing and 1 chance of winning. Where does the 9/2 odds come from, a 4 or 5 horse field?

He says his 'A' horse is 1/1, his 'B' horse is 2/1 and his 'C' horse is 9/2, and that he wants to bet a natural odds horse, but uses his 'C' horse, which is only a natural odds horse in a very short field, as the example. If he is your 'C' horse, that must mean that you like him as a win contender, why would you even resort to looking for a natural odds horse to bet, in that case? Wouldn't your 'C' horse be a low bet amount horse anyway? Why would you jump ship on your method of assigning A,B,C to your contenders, isn't that why you assign those classifications to them in the first place, to determine your bet size?

I don't get it.

[Capper Al]

You're right, they have taken it too seriously. It's a $2 bet to kill boredom. Why are you even thinking strategy at all. Throw $2 out there on a birthday, or a name, or color, or whatever. Not to be insulting, but I don't even see the point of this thread.

Street address, phone number, anything would work. I was just trying to clean up the garbage bets.

[Capper Al]

I don't understand the OP's stance here. He said in his first post that he is looking for a natural or random odds horse to place an action/recreational bet on, and yet he uses a 9/2 horse as that natural/random odds horse. Even in a 7 horse field, natural probability would be 6 chances of losing and 1 chance of winning. Where does the 9/2 odds come from, a 4 or 5 horse field?

He says his 'A' horse is 1/1, his 'B' horse is 2/1 and his 'C' horse is 9/2, and that he wants to bet a natural odds horse, but uses his 'C' horse, which is only a natural odds horse in a very short field, as the example. If he is your 'C' horse, that must mean that you like him as a win contender, why would you even resort to looking for a natural odds horse to bet, in that case? Wouldn't your 'C' horse be a low bet amount horse anyway? Why would you jump ship on your method of assigning A,B,C to your contenders, isn't that why you assign those classifications to them in the first place, to determine your bet size?

I don't get it.

Sorry if I wasn't clear on this. The discussion is what to do when you don't get natural odds, garbage races. This is especially important to the weekend warrior, who won't bet again until next weekend.

[MJC922]

For me the action bet in this case is the top choice at underlay odds. Overlays always take priority however overlay odds on a third choice I'd be looking for odds that are above field size. To each his own on the action bets I suppose, I always employed them as much for psychological reasons than any other and couldn't tell you if I made money with them or not, just that I stayed 'content' and the bottom line was positive. If the action bets are $2.00 it's not even worth thinking about IMO, when you get into $20 action bets let's say, third choice at 12-1 is (for me) still technically an 'action' bet however it at least has the potential to add significantly to the bottom line.

[Capper Al]

For me the action bet in this case is the top choice at underlay odds. Overlays always take priority however overlay odds on a third choice I'd be looking for odds that are above field size. To each his own on the action bets I suppose, I always employed them as much for psychological reasons than any other and couldn't tell you if I made money with them or not, just that I stayed 'content' and the bottom line was positive. If the action bets are $2.00 it's not even worth thinking about IMO, when you get into $20 action bets let's say, third choice at 12-1 is (for me) still technically an 'action' bet however it at least has the potential to add significantly to the bottom line.

I'm finding this out. Yesterday, I played CBY and PIM. Eight races at PIM because of a contest. I won 10 out of 16. Only one produced fair odds.

[thaskalos]

People have taken this too serious. By action bet, I mean only a race to throw $2.00 to cheer for something.
I feel that there is a contradiction in your argument here. If an action bet is indeed just a throw away bet to cure the boredom...then why the insistence to make it to SHOW, instead of to win? If you are bored and looking to "throw away" $2 as an antidote to your boredom, then bet it to WIN...or even on a one-way exacta. Show bets reveal a certain desperation to cash a ticket, in my opinion, and can hardly be considered an "antidote for boredom"...because they are themselves the most boring bets in existence. Especially when confined to one of the top three betting choices.

PS...

By Beyer's definition, an "action bet" serves its purpose only if our "prime bets" are at least 10-times larger.

[Capper Al]

My prime bets are about 5 to 10 times larger. My interest in this topic is that the public might be getting too good. One might have to go with the favorites from here on out.

[raybo]

I feel for you Al!

If the only way I could play, was to play every race, or even most of the races, I would have quit the game long ago. To me, the wagering part of racing is the most unpleasant part of the game. It's something that I don't get any enjoyment from whatsoever, because it is forced upon me in order to make money. It's like a regular job where you are forced to perform some task that you truly hate, just to keep your job. :ThmbDown:

[Capper Al]

I feel for you Al!

If the only way I could play, was to play every race, or even most of the races, I would have quit the game long ago. To me, the wagering part of racing is the most unpleasant part of the game. It's something that I don't get any enjoyment from whatsoever, because it is forced upon me in order to make money. It's like a regular job where you are forced to perform some task that you truly hate, just to keep your job. :ThmbDown:

It's not bad being a weekend warrior.

The public was good before the information age. Because of information age, it looks like the age of waiting for the score might be giving way to going with the flow of low odds winners. Or at least, one might now need to know when to go for high odds horses and when and how to go for low odds horses. It's a tough game. It always was and seems that it will always be. And right when one thinks they have found a foundation like going for value, it disappears right before their eyes.

[traynor]

My prime bets are about 5 to 10 times larger. My interest in this topic is that the public might be getting too good. One might have to go with the favorites from here on out.

With a bit of work, you can find attributes in those favorites that indicate win probabilities up in the 70% range. Win or place rates of 70% are easy.

[Capper Al]

With a bit of work, you can find attributes in those favorites that indicate win probabilities up in the 70% range. Win or place rates of 70% are easy.

I'm believing this. The era of waiting for value horses might be disappearing before our eyes.

[traynor]

I'm believing this. The era of waiting for value horses might be disappearing before our eyes.

Serious. Major change in my handicapping approach when Katherine Jung (my occasional bowhunting companion) pointed out that of the wagers I was making at Fraser Downs, almost every one that went off at 3/1 or better lost. You have no idea how much the same old same old stuff can be improved by understanding that chasing "value" is outdated. That is, the serious bettors (who seem to know a lot more than I do about which horse is going to win) tend to load their money on favorites and near-favorites.

It is not quite as easy as "only bet favorites" but close. Biggest caveat is to be sure that odds-on favorites at the track(s) you bet actually run like odds-on favorites. At some tracks, entries going off at 3/5 or less can be tossed as no go's. Some may win, but nowhere near enough to make a profit.

Watch for entries that take a steady stream of money through the betting, but tend to hover around even money or a bit under. Varies by track. Need to do the homework.

[raybo]

I'm believing this. The era of waiting for value horses might be disappearing before our eyes.

"Value" (as defined by the individual player) will always be there Al. regardless of how good the public gets, they will still be wrong plenty of times, in individual races. The problem handicappers (who have the same opinion as you about the public) face, is in not becoming "mechanized" and "self-manipulated by their own fears" to the point that their whole method is based on some assumed public intelligence superiority.

Successful play has always depended on the individual player's skill, and it will always be that way. If you have the skills, you will always have the ability to find your definition of "value", but if you don't have the skills, and instead, run scared of the public, to the point that you start doing what they do, you will stay one of the 98+% of losers.

"Overlays" are perceived (one's own opinion, not necessarily true), and are not required to find "value". Value simply depends on the prices you get and the hit rates you have, according to your own skills. Some will continue to find "their" value and others will keep sinking further and further into the quicksand of negative thinking and undisciplined actions. Just as there will always be losers in this game, there will also always be winners, they just may not be the same winners as in the past.

Tomorrow's winners will be the ones that continue to evolve with the game, the best.

[Capper Al]

Raybo,

What I am saying is that I'm seeing the pendulum swinging in the other direction toward low price horses. These may not be favorites; but maybe second, third, or even fourth favorites.

[raybo]

Raybo,

What I am saying is that I'm seeing the pendulum swinging in the other direction toward low price horses. These may not be favorites; but maybe second, third, or even fourth favorites.

Again Al, it depends on the prices you receive and the hit rates you have on those horses you bet. Theoretically, one can bet low priced horses, if they are the right ones, and make profit long term. Regardless, long term profit is totally dependent on your skill as a handicapper and wagerer.

The old colloquial saying down here is "Some got it, and some ain't", and that is a fact of life.

[Capper Al]

Raybo,

Either of us pontificating doesn't prove that we have it or don't have it. I'm talking about a shift toward profitability moving more to the low odds side. And yes I understand mythical odds lines and playing value against these lines.

[ultracapper]

My prime bets are about 5 to 10 times larger. My interest in this topic is that the public might be getting too good. One might have to go with the favorites from here on out.

It would be very interesting to see what the percentage of winners that paid $20 in, say, 1985 was, and what that percentage is, adjusted for increased skim (the equivalent may be $19.20 now) is today. The major effect I've seen as the handicapper is supposedly getting better, is the prevalence of odds-on winners and lower priced favorites in general. I don't know if the information advantage handicappers now have has made them better at picking the higher priced winners as much as it has made them more confident in betting the shorter priced picks. Short priced winners get hammered. There are very few 3-1 winning favorites anymore. The last 2 KD winners paid under $8 even.

[PaceAdvantage]

Serious. Major change in my handicapping approach when Katherine Jung (my occasional bowhunting companion) pointed out that of the wagers I was making at Fraser Downs, almost every one that went off at 3/1 or better lost.The Katherine Jung????

[Capper Al]

It would be very interesting to see what the percentage of winners that paid $20 in, say, 1985 was, and what that percentage is, adjusted for increased skim (the equivalent may be $19.20 now) is today. The major effect I've seen as the handicapper is supposedly getting better, is the prevalence of odds-on winners and lower priced favorites in general. I don't know if the information advantage handicappers now have has made them better at picking the higher priced winners as much as it has made them more confident in betting the shorter priced picks. Short priced winners get hammered. There are very few 3-1 winning favorites anymore. The last 2 KD winners paid under $8 even.

Dave has some good stats on favorites in his book, Percentages and Probabilities 2012. Overall, the public's top choice is about 5% better at winning, and about 6% better with one of their top three.

[traynor]

The Katherine Jung????
No such luck.

[ultracapper]

Dave has some good stats on favorites in his book, Percentages and Probabilities 2012. Overall, the public's top choice is about 5% better at winning, and about 6% better with one of their top three.

That is significant, and indicates that, indeed, the additional information, and the ability to crunch it more effectively, has improved the handicapping in general. However, what you refer to just means the handicappers are better selecting between the lower priced horses, and are more accurate at picking the favorite and ultimate winner from the first 3 or 4 favorites. It doesn't indicate that a horse that was once 20-1 is now being bet down to 6-1 because handicappers are getting better. It indicates they are sorting out the shorter priced horses better.

[Capper Al]

That is significant, and indicates that, indeed, the additional information, and the ability to crunch it more effectively, has improved the handicapping in general. However, what you refer to just means the handicappers are better selecting between the lower priced horses, and are more accurate at picking the favorite and ultimate winner from the first 3 or 4 favorites. It doesn't indicate that a horse that was once 20-1 is now being bet down to 6-1 because handicappers are getting better. It indicates they are sorting out the shorter priced horses better.

It might, but I'm not seeing data supporting that conclusion or not supporting it.

[raybo]

That is significant, and indicates that, indeed, the additional information, and the ability to crunch it more effectively, has improved the handicapping in general. However, what you refer to just means the handicappers are better selecting between the lower priced horses, and are more accurate at picking the favorite and ultimate winner from the first 3 or 4 favorites. It doesn't indicate that a horse that was once 20-1 is now being bet down to 6-1 because handicappers are getting better. It indicates they are sorting out the shorter priced horses better.

Not necessarily all due to what you mentioned. There are fewer tracks now and shorter fields. Both lead to hit rates, in general, being higher.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Serious. Major change in my handicapping approach when Katherine Jung (my occasional bowhunting companion) pointed out that of the wagers I was making at Fraser Downs, almost every one that went off at 3/1 or better lost. You have no idea how much the same old same old stuff can be improved by understanding that chasing "value" is outdated. That is, the serious bettors (who seem to know a lot more than I do about which horse is going to win) tend to load their money on favorites and near-favorites.

It is not quite as easy as "only bet favorites" but close. Biggest caveat is to be sure that odds-on favorites at the track(s) you bet actually run like odds-on favorites. At some tracks, entries going off at 3/5 or less can be tossed as no go's. Some may win, but nowhere near enough to make a profit.

Watch for entries that take a steady stream of money through the betting, but tend to hover around even money or a bit under. Varies by track. Need to do the homework.

I think this is very bad advice for the recreational player. You'd need to hit at 60% or so to be winning with these lower priced horses, and you're playing right into the "serious bettors' " hands if trying to climb aboard the same key horses.

I'm not arguing that it's not possible to hit 70% with these if you "do the homework" and follow the money flows, but that requires a lot more time than most of us weekend warriors can put in.

And how many of these horses at 4/5 to 6/5 win on each card? Two races? Why not try to sniff out the 5-1 to 15-1 shots that will win two or three races on the card? That way a play with a 15 percent strike rate can keep their head above water. Why not play longer shots underneath the heavy chalks in gimmicks if you concede them the race?

IMHO, it's easier to find a longshot that figures rather than determine if a heavy chalk is legit or not....

[MJC922]

I think we have to ask ourselves how much 'value' is the result of crowd mistakes in individual races (e.g. some loon firing away for a day) vs. mistakes that are more inherent within the crowd collectively. IMO the 'old school' value play was built around throwing together a decent line and waiting around to capitalize on the former scenario. It's not that it never happens anymore but the odds volatility has created a logistical nightmare for that strategy, if some loon fires early the sharks and whales balance it before the bell, if the loon fires late enough you can't react in time anyway. This year I've instead looked to recalibrate my plays to align with longer-term fundamental crowd mistakes with the aim to ignore the odds altogether. If you know something has inherent value IMO you're better off betting it regardless of the odds and let the law of large numbers carry it.

[Poindexter]

I think this is very bad advice for the recreational player. You'd need to hit at 60% or so to be winning with these lower priced horses, and you're playing right into the "serious bettors' " hands if trying to climb aboard the same key horses.

I'm not arguing that it's not possible to hit 70% with these if you "do the homework" and follow the money flows, but that requires a lot more time than most of us weekend warriors can put in.

And how many of these horses at 4/5 to 6/5 win on each card? Two races? Why not try to sniff out the 5-1 to 15-1 shots that will win two or three races on the card? That way a play with a 15 percent strike rate can keep their head above water. Why not play longer shots underneath the heavy chalks in gimmicks if you concede them the race?

IMHO, it's easier to find a longshot that figures rather than determine if a heavy chalk is legit or not....

Contrar, I was hoping Traynor would start doing free seminars at racetracks across the country. Just think how great it would be for everybody having the mindset, I like #4, oh well, can't bet him he is at 4-1. Then in the next race, I like number 2, oh he is at 4/5(my top choice and 4/5-time to unload). All this while us value seekers "donate to their cause".

On the serious side, how does one even know a horse will pay under 3-1. If you pass on him at 7/2 and he dips to 5/2 after the bell, you just missed out on a play. If you bet him at 5/2 and he jumps to 7/2 at the bell you just made a play you should not have. Makes this "easy money" strategy a little harder.

In my book heavy chalks make great bets if they look tons best, as singles(pick 3, pick 4, pick 5.....maybe keying on top in trifectas, supers, exactas in some situations......) I cannot think of anything less appealing than betting on this same horse to win at 1-2(A break even point of .667 and at best you might yield 70 % winners). Bet $100 to win, 70 win, 30 lose over your next 100 bets, so you bet $10,000 and you bring home a whopping $10,500 and that is assuming you do an incredible handicapping job. If only 60 win, which is probably a more reasonable expectation, you lose $1000.

Once in a while when they are paying almost as much to place as to win, I will bet them to place if they are not win only types (American Pharoah in the Preakness), but keying these horses in the exotics is a so much superior approach than playing the straight, imo.

[Some_One]

It might, but I'm not seeing data supporting that conclusion or not supporting it.

http://racing.scmp.com/freeservice/news/news20140625b.asp

[traynor]

I think this is very bad advice for the recreational player. You'd need to hit at 60% or so to be winning with these lower priced horses, and you're playing right into the "serious bettors' " hands if trying to climb aboard the same key horses.

I'm not arguing that it's not possible to hit 70% with these if you "do the homework" and follow the money flows, but that requires a lot more time than most of us weekend warriors can put in.

And how many of these horses at 4/5 to 6/5 win on each card? Two races? Why not try to sniff out the 5-1 to 15-1 shots that will win two or three races on the card? That way a play with a 15 percent strike rate can keep their head above water. Why not play longer shots underneath the heavy chalks in gimmicks if you concede them the race?

IMHO, it's easier to find a longshot that figures rather than determine if a heavy chalk is legit or not....

Easy. Keep records. If you know how often you bet horses at whatever odds, it should be fairly easy to track how often you win the bets you make at (or below, or above) specific odds cutoff lines. Sniffing out the longer priced entries sounds reasonable--but just how often does one cash a ticket on those long priced entries, in relation to their odds? An occasional $15-16 winner doesn't do much good if it takes $20 in bets (on average) to catch one.

I assume that if someone has taken the trouble to determine they have a 15% strike rate, they also know what the odds are (on average) on the horses they bet vs the horses they win. Finding a longshot that figures is a breeze. Finding one that wins is a different matter entirely.

[traynor]

Contrar, I was hoping Traynor would start doing free seminars at racetracks across the country. Just think how great it would be for everybody having the mindset, I like #4, oh well, can't bet him he is at 4-1. Then in the next race, I like number 2, oh he is at 4/5(my top choice and 4/5-time to unload). All this while us value seekers "donate to their cause".

On the serious side, how does one even know a horse will pay under 3-1. If you pass on him at 7/2 and he dips to 5/2 after the bell, you just missed out on a play. If you bet him at 5/2 and he jumps to 7/2 at the bell you just made a play you should not have. Makes this "easy money" strategy a little harder.

In my book heavy chalks make great bets if they look tons best, as singles(pick 3, pick 4, pick 5.....maybe keying on top in trifectas, supers, exactas in some situations......) I cannot think of anything less appealing than betting on this same horse to win at 1-2(A break even point of .667 and at best you might yield 70 % winners). Bet $100 to win, 70 win, 30 lose over your next 100 bets, so you bet $10,000 and you bring home a whopping $10,500 and that is assuming you do an incredible handicapping job. If only 60 win, which is probably a more reasonable expectation, you lose $1000.

Once in a while when they are paying almost as much to place as to win, I will bet them to place if they are not win only types (American Pharoah in the Preakness), but keying these horses in the exotics is a so much superior approach than playing the straight, imo.

"3/1" is arbitrary, and only at that specific track. Other tracks are different (for me, too). The point is that if one monitors what the bettors do (or do not do) at their favorite track(s), they can discover a lot of useful information. In particular, how often horses that go off at odds over whatever actually win, and how often horses that go off at very low odds actually win.

[raybo]

I assume that if someone has taken the trouble to determine they have a 15% strike rate, they also know what the odds are (on average) on the horses they bet vs the horses they win. Finding a longshot that figures is a breeze. Finding one that wins is a different matter entirely.

I certainly track that stuff. Both average and median. Once you remove extreme outliers you know what you are looking at and what value it has, and at what tracks, as a methodology.

[Capper Al]

http://racing.scmp.com/freeservice/news/news20140625b.asp


Interesting article. It does point to the public zeroing in. I'm thinking there's a middle ground by keying the low odds horse on top.

[raybo]

Interesting article. It does point to the public zeroing in. I'm thinking there's a middle ground by keying the low odds horse on top.

Analyzing the low priced horses on top is the easy part. It's the ones underneath, and what odds rankings, and how many, you can monetarily efficiently put down there, that is the challenge, and always has been. As a long time superfecta player, that was my thinking and philosophy long ago, and it is true, you can key the low priced horse on top, but in order to make long term profit you have to be very selective about which, and how many horses, you can put below him.

[Capper Al]

Analyzing the low priced horses on top is the easy part. It's the ones underneath, and what odds rankings, and how many, you can monetarily efficiently put down there, that is the challenge, and always has been. As a long time superfecta player, that was my thinking and philosophy long ago, and it is true, you can key the low priced horse on top, but in order to make long term profit you have to be very selective about which, and how many horses, you can put below him.

I was keying the long odds horses on all spots successfully for years. It seems recently that this might of changed. Finding an long horse to go on has never been a problem for me. It now seems to costly on top.

[raybo]

I was keying the long odds horses on all spots successfully for years. It seems recently that this might of changed. Finding an long horse to go on has never been a problem for me. It now seems to costly on top.

Whether keying a low riced horse on top, or keying a long shot horse in all positions is the same type of problem, you have to determine risk versus potential reward of that singled horse making the ticket in the right position(s) or not. Remember, in verticals at least, the low priced horse is going to be on the most tickets, so unless you can offset that public support, with other horses, the value, if any, of that ticket is very low. Not worth the risk. On the other hand, keying a longshot in all positions has the potential of much better payouts, depending on what position he actually finishes in, but he can have a better hit rate, often dramatically better, keyed that way, as the low priced horse keyed on top.

[MJC922]

Contrar, I was hoping Traynor would start doing free seminars at racetracks across the country. Just think how great it would be for everybody having the mindset, I like #4, oh well, can't bet him he is at 4-1. Then in the next race, I like number 2, oh he is at 4/5(my top choice and 4/5-time to unload). All this while us value seekers "donate to their cause".

On the serious side, how does one even know a horse will pay under 3-1. If you pass on him at 7/2 and he dips to 5/2 after the bell, you just missed out on a play. If you bet him at 5/2 and he jumps to 7/2 at the bell you just made a play you should not have. Makes this "easy money" strategy a little harder.

In my book heavy chalks make great bets if they look tons best, as singles(pick 3, pick 4, pick 5.....maybe keying on top in trifectas, supers, exactas in some situations......) I cannot think of anything less appealing than betting on this same horse to win at 1-2(A break even point of .667 and at best you might yield 70 % winners). Bet $100 to win, 70 win, 30 lose over your next 100 bets, so you bet $10,000 and you bring home a whopping $10,500 and that is assuming you do an incredible handicapping job. If only 60 win, which is probably a more reasonable expectation, you lose $1000.

Once in a while when they are paying almost as much to place as to win, I will bet them to place if they are not win only types (American Pharoah in the Preakness), but keying these horses in the exotics is a so much superior approach than playing the straight, imo.

There are far worse fates than +5% ROI with a Win%70. I'm personally chasing after +7% ROI with a Win%38 and assuming approx. 50 plays per week given that I have a day job and no time to attend live racing anymore if it holds up in real world testing I would be entirely satisfied with it.

[MJC922]

In theory when I look at what Traynor is suggesting and the types of tracks he has expressed some interest in, I can see logic behind it. However I think having a max odds requirement for me would be just as tough to execute as a minimum (which given the volatility of the tote is difficult at best).

With the types of systemic overlays I'm looking for (assuming such things actually exist) it really doesn't make any sense to have odds requirements.

[Poindexter]

"3/1" is arbitrary, and only at that specific track. Other tracks are different (for me, too). The point is that if one monitors what the bettors do (or do not do) at their favorite track(s), they can discover a lot of useful information. In particular, how often horses that go off at odds over whatever actually win, and how often horses that go off at very low odds actually win.

You are ignoring randomness. So lets say I make a 1000 win bets this year at Santa Anita and they net me 1% roi. I then do a data crunch and find that if I eliminate bad jockeys, my roi goes to 5% and if then I eliminate morning line favorites my roi goes to 7% and I then eliminate turf routes and my roi goes to 11%......Then I make 1000 win bets next year. Is my data crunch going to tell me the same thing? I haven't done it, but I severely doubt it. My guess is that over time all these variables regress to my mean and the same parameters that bring me up to +11 % this year, will be much closer to my +1% mean next year and there will be another group of parameters that will bring me to 11% on next years sample. Now there may very well be some factors that are going to be long term poor performers(maybe I am betting too many outside post positions on 2 turn routes....) and I highly suggest every bettor track data on their bets (though I do not do so myself). I am just of the belief that it will take a long time to figure out what these are and to confirm with a brand new separate sample.
Also, I do not think public odds should ever play into this decision process. If you want to use some form of odds blending to refine your line, okay, but to eliminate a play because it is too much value or too high a price is insanity to me. Now I have posted about "dead" on the board horses and how I reduce my bets on these, but I am leaning away from this practice in many situations as I am seeing too many of these come in, but I do respect the toteboard.

[traynor]

You are ignoring randomness. So lets say I make a 1000 win bets this year at Santa Anita and they net me 1% roi. I then do a data crunch and find that if I eliminate bad jockeys, my roi goes to 5% and if then I eliminate morning line favorites my roi goes to 7% and I then eliminate turf routes and my roi goes to 11%......Then I make 1000 win bets next year. Is my data crunch going to tell me the same thing? I haven't done it, but I severely doubt it. My guess is that over time all these variables regress to my mean and the same parameters that bring me up to +11 % this year, will be much closer to my +1% mean next year and there will be another group of parameters that will bring me to 11% on next years sample. Now there may very well be some factors that are going to be long term poor performers(maybe I am betting too many outside post positions on 2 turn routes....) and I highly suggest every bettor track data on their bets (though I do not do so myself). I am just of the belief that it will take a long time to figure out what these are and to confirm with a brand new separate sample.
Also, I do not think public odds should ever play into this decision process. If you want to use some form of odds blending to refine your line, okay, but to eliminate a play because it is too much value or too high a price is insanity to me. Now I have posted about "dead" on the board horses and how I reduce my bets on these, but I am leaning away from this practice in many situations as I am seeing too many of these come in, but I do respect the toteboard.

If I bet a horse to win and it doesn't win, that horse had zero "value" regardless of what the odds available before the race might suggest. Perhaps the bettors are a bit more clever at (some) of the tracks I bet on, but at those tracks, the number of long prices is nowhere near break even for "value" plays. I don't do philosophy--I just bet on horse races. If I can make more money ignoring the horses that the so-called "insiders" or "whales" or whatever are avoiding, that is what I do. Conversely, at other tracks if the same thing happens I will shovel the money in with both hands.

It seems to me that a LOT of profit (or lack thereof) is in understanding the differences between the two scenarios above. I do not suggest a generic strategy. I suggest that anyone interested in profit would do well to understand that there is more ("smart money," for lack of a better term) at Track A than at Track B. It is up to the individual bettor to determine which is which for himself or herself.

[Robert Fischer]

Let's say that you are looking for natural or random odds horse and don't have a value play in your top three. And let's say that your A horse is going off at even money, your B horse is going at 2/1, and your C horse is going off at 9/2. Do you see the C horse as the action bet to show? I think I'm going that way because 3 for a third divided into 9/2 is 1.5 higher than my A or B selections.

This doesn't make much sense to me.

I don't understand the context for looking for natural odds horses

I don't understand how my A horse is even money and is natural odds

I don't understand why I'd arbitrarily choose my C horse for a show bet

ditto for show action bets



yet somehow there is 6 pages on this

[raybo]

This doesn't make much sense to me.

I don't understand the context for looking for natural odds horses

I don't understand how my A horse is even money and is natural odds

I don't understand why I'd arbitrarily choose my C horse for a show bet

ditto for show action bets



yet somehow there is 6 pages on this

Evidently his A and B horses are priced too low, don't know what is wrong with his C horse, but he has decided to look for a natural odds horse that has a chance, as an 'action' play, I think. Most of the 6 pages of posts were trying to get him to pass the race if it doesn't meet his betting criteria, but he justifies it by stating that he's a 'weekend warrior' and thinks he has to bet every available race in order to keep from getting bored. (sounds to me like he has a gambling addiction and/or no self control):bang:

[thaskalos]

People have taken this too serious. By action bet, I mean only a race to throw $2.00 to cheer for something. The odds in the given example are post time odds. The question being implied is a third choice to show at 9/2, in an action bet situation, better than our top choice at even money? The reasoning is 9/2 or 4.5/1 divided by 3 (3 spots to cash) better than a 1/1 with only 1 spot to cash. Here 4.5/3 is 1.5 possibly indicating a better value in this case. That's it. This is not meant to be a betting system for serious wagers.

I thought of something that would do a better job of curing your boredom in-between the serious bets, Al. How about forgetting about the $2 flat bets to slow...and starting to bet show PARLAYS instead? Start at $2...and keep letting it ride for as long as you can stand it.

You are looking for "action"...right?

[Maximillion]

Why not find a track or two you can follow and play other than weekends?
Could help with being more selective.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

Easy. Keep records. If you know how often you bet horses at whatever odds, it should be fairly easy to track how often you win the bets you make at (or below, or above) specific odds cutoff lines. Sniffing out the longer priced entries sounds reasonable--but just how often does one cash a ticket on those long priced entries, in relation to their odds? An occasional $15-16 winner doesn't do much good if it takes $20 in bets (on average) to catch one.

I assume that if someone has taken the trouble to determine they have a 15% strike rate, they also know what the odds are (on average) on the horses they bet vs the horses they win. Finding a longshot that figures is a breeze. Finding one that wins is a different matter entirely.

My win bets are actually hitting at 13%, and I'm breaking even, so my average mutual must be around 8-1. I rarely bet a horse below 5-1, and then only in a short field. My 15% hit rate is for all wagers, and I'm above the Mendoza line so far this season - much of it due to the omnis I'm hitting at Sha Tin.

For me, picking and getting a longer shot home is easier to do than determine if the even money chalk is legit. Rather than grind out a small ROI with wagers on chalks, I think a better approach is to play the longer odds and get the occassional windfalls.

It's rare for a race to end up with the horses' finish an accurate reflection of their post-time odds, but I'd say about half the races 'on paper" look to me like they have little value with one of the main contenders being a likely winner, and shorter priced horses figuring to round out the gimmicks. These are passes, where a small action bet is all I put in. These are also often the races where the heavy bettors are suppressing the win value on the chalk, and making it tougher for us little guys.

The other half of races look more wide open, with either a bomb with a good chance to hit the board, or with a longer shot on top. These are the races worth investing in - especially if more than one of the chalks is vulnerable and could run out. The Preakness this past Saturday was a great example, where just having the exacta could have made up being blanked on the rest of the card.

There's "value" in at least half the races run, but not always in the win pool. I think MJC992 has the right idea - there are certain races you just KNOW the crowd has made a mistake, and those are the ones ripe for plucking....

[Maximillion]

My win bets are actually hitting at 13%, and I'm breaking even, so my average mutual must be around 8-1. I rarely bet a horse below 5-1, and then only in a short field. My 15% hit rate is for all wagers, and I'm above the Mendoza line so far this season - much of it due to the omnis I'm hitting at Sha Tin.

For me, picking and getting a longer shot home is easier to do than determine if the even money chalk is legit. Rather than grind out a small ROI with wagers on chalks, I think a better approach is to play the longer odds and get the occassional windfalls.

It's rare for a race to end up with the horses' finish an accurate reflection of their post-time odds, but I'd say about half the races 'on paper" look to me like they have little value with one of the main contenders being a likely winner, and shorter priced horses figuring to round out the gimmicks. These are passes, where a small action bet is all I put in. These are also often the races where the heavy bettors are suppressing the win value on the chalk, and making it tougher for us little guys.

The other half of races look more wide open, with either a bomb with a good chance to hit the board, or with a longer shot on top. These are the races worth investing in - especially if more than one of the chalks is vulnerable and could run out. The Preakness this past Saturday was a great example, where just having the exacta could have made up being blanked on the rest of the card.

There's "value" in at least half the races run, but not always in the win pool. I think MJC992 has the right idea - there are certain races you just KNOW the crowd has made a mistake, and those are the ones ripe for plucking....

Ive been hovering around 12% on win bets so far this year over a pretty large number of plays, and my own results have also been better playing this way- going for the higher avg. mutuals.

[raybo]

Ive been hovering around 12% on win bets so far this year over a pretty large number of plays, and my own results have also been better playing this way- going for the higher avg. mutuals.

Higher average mutuels lend themselves to tracks that, year after year, produce higher than average win mutuels. So, it depends on what tracks you play, if you are going to focus on longer priced horses, IMO. At many tracks longer priced win play will not yield positive ROIs, according to my testing. I you are playing a long term chalky track, you are forced to be very patient and disciplined regarding the races you play (which many players are not), betting only races where the favorite is truly vulnerable, and/or you are forced to play truly legitimate lower priced horses

[Capper Al]

This doesn't make much sense to me.

I don't understand the context for looking for natural odds horses

I don't understand how my A horse is even money and is natural odds

I don't understand why I'd arbitrarily choose my C horse for a show bet

ditto for show action bets



yet somehow there is 6 pages on this

Look at it as a given for a particular race asking how would you throw away $2.00 to pass time and have some interest in the race.

[Robert Fischer]

Look at it as a given for a particular race asking how would you throw away $2.00 to pass time and have some interest in the race.

that's a tough question.

I have my own approach, but for something like that - if you enjoy your approach - then do it and have fun. :ThmbUp: A grumpy person like me isn't going to make the game easier, at least not from a grumpy response to your post. If you like it your way, do it that way and enjoy yourself.

[Robert Fischer]

here is my Action play method

first "A" horse and you are done = $2 win bet

or First 2 "B" horses you have = $1 win on both (dutch) for $2 win bet


Example


1.) start with the favorite. Categorize the favorite as either A)Strong! B)I'm not sure, seems pretty good or C)Weak!


He's an "A" = bet $2

Say he was a "B" then move on to number 2

2.) Categorize the second choice as either A)Strong! B)I'm not sure, seems pretty good or C)Weak!

if Second Choice was an "A" you bet him $2 win only, even if the Fav was a "B".

if Second Choice is a "B" then dutch with the fav. (unless the fav was a "C" or he was a "C" in which case you'd move on to number 3.


keep going down the ladder until you have an "A" or 2 "B's"



Going to be a long term loser, but it gives you practice determining whether or not the favorites were strong.

And if you honestly thought the favorite is a "C" - then you may want to handicap the race and consider more than just an action bet - You could have stumbled on a good bet.

[Capper Al]

Robert,

I'm coming to the same conclusion. Just put $2.00 to win on the 'A' horse. I might of over-thought this.

[Maximillion]

Higher average mutuels lend themselves to tracks that, year after year, produce higher than average win mutuels. So, it depends on what tracks you play, if you are going to focus on longer priced horses, IMO. At many tracks longer priced win play will not yield positive ROIs, according to my testing. I you are playing a long term chalky track, you are forced to be very patient and disciplined regarding the races you play (which many players are not), betting only races where the favorite is truly vulnerable, and/or you are forced to play truly legitimate lower priced horses

Raybo,
If i can ask,which tracks have some of the lowest avg. mutuals?

[raybo]

Raybo,
If i can ask,which tracks have some of the lowest avg. mutuals?

Rather than post all of those, just try any of the tracks that don't appear on this list (these are the top ranked average win price tracks):

Track -- Average Win price 2014

Del Mar $ 14.23
Gulfstream West $ 14.02
Oaklawn $ 13.99
Delta Downs $ 13.60
Keeneland $ 13.44
Remington $ 13.35
Gulfstream $ 13.17
Evangeline Downs $ 13.09
Woodbine $ 13.09
Turfway Park $ 13.01
Albuquerque $ 12.82
Tampa Bay $ 12.62
Pimlico $ 12.47
Laurel $ 12.34
Santa Anita $ 12.33
Monmouth $ 12.20
Canterbury $ 12.14
Indiana Downs $ 12.13
Retama $ 12.12
Northlands $ 12.02
Kentucky Downs $ 11.95
Fairgrounds $ 11.95
Louisiana Downs $ 11.88
Saratoga $ 11.85

This is why I focus my play on the Louisiana tracks, and the one just across the border in Arkansas. :eek:

[Maximillion]

Rather than post all of those, just try any of the tracks that don't appear on this list (these are the top ranked average win price tracks):

Track -- Average Win price 2014

Del Mar $ 14.23
Gulfstream West $ 14.02
Oaklawn $ 13.99
Delta Downs $ 13.60
Keeneland $ 13.44
Remington $ 13.35
Gulfstream $ 13.17
Evangeline Downs $ 13.09
Woodbine $ 13.09
Turfway Park $ 13.01
Albuquerque $ 12.82
Tampa Bay $ 12.62
Pimlico $ 12.47
Laurel $ 12.34
Santa Anita $ 12.33
Monmouth $ 12.20
Canterbury $ 12.14
Indiana Downs $ 12.13
Retama $ 12.12
Northlands $ 12.02
Kentucky Downs $ 11.95
Fairgrounds $ 11.95
Louisiana Downs $ 11.88
Saratoga $ 11.85

Thanks.
I know we both like Delta Downs,how did you do there this year?
After being one of my best the prior 2 years,it didnt go very well this year.

[raybo]

Thanks.

HANA finally listened, and published that list in their recent newsletter!! Prior to that I have been using "Rick's Longshots" track listing.

[raybo]

Thanks.
I know we both like Delta Downs,how did you do there this year?
After being one of my best the prior 2 years,it didnt go very well this year.

Played 186 races, 35.5% hit rate, 1.38 ROI, my top ranked "PFV" rated horse. No "off" tracks, any odds (no minimum odds requirement).

If I would have required a minimum odds, here is what I would have gotten with >=1/1 and >=2/1 odds, etc..:

[raybo]

Here is my other "favorite" track, Oaklawn.

My "FWC" rated top pick only, at any odds, and surface condition (using my 'recalculated' running styles and early speed points for eliminations from win contention).

Played 71 races, 26.8% hit rate, 1.32 ROI

And here is the odds report for >=1/1, 2/1, etc. (the only "outlier" I had was on a 3rd ranked horse that paid $45, but I was only playing my top ranked horse in each race (highest payout on those was $28)):

[EQUIPACE]

I don't know about the problem of feeling like you have to bet races that you don't consider good betting races, because I have never had the compulsion to gamble just to gamble.

Ray,

Don't they have a 1-800 number for someone with that problem? :D

John
~¿o

[raybo]

Ray,

Don't they have a 1-800 number for someone with that problem? :D

John
~¿o

LOL - yup! But, in order for that to help, one must first - admit having a problem, and second - really want to change it. One or both of those does not apply in this case.